Believing in God: Here is the real question

[xvimbi]

The question asked in my earlier post (Why do you believe in God) was merely a preparatory question for the real question I have in mind.

Consider this:

When I asked what prompted you to believe in God, not a single person admitted that they were told or even forced to do so when they were little, although this is by far the most common reason why people start to follow a certain religion. At a young age, nobody can really reflect on the intricacies of something so complex and deep as religion, so their habit of following a religion is entirely artificial. When they reach an age where they could ponder about different religions, most (I'd guess >99%) don't. Instead, they stick with what they have grown up with, either out of convenience, or because they have become so entrenched with that particular religion that they are no longer willing to even think about another religion, let alone accept another religion and convert to it.

If this was not the case, why would we have nations that are completely dominated by a certain religion, say the US - dominated by Christianity - and Indonesia - dominated by Islam? These religions are so widespread in these countries, because children are born into that religion. They have been pestered by their parents, teachers and governments to follow that religion. They have never been exposed to anything else, so they perpetuate that religion. In short, the reason they follow that religion is because of societal pressure.

The really crazy thing is that they all claim that their religion is The Truth. They say that they believe in their God(s), because their God(s) wanted it this way, and the result of what we see is what their God(s) wanted. When I ask Christians whether they would still believe in Christianity even if they had been born into an entirely Islamic society, they all answer: "Of course! God would have found me, even within all those infidels. I am sure I was destined to believe in God. It would have happened anywhere. It could not have been any other way!". Does anybody think this is remotely believable? If that was really true, or if people would really thoroughly study all religions and make up their minds as to which one they are going to follow, we would have an even distribution of followers of all religions throughout the world. This is not the case.

From all that, I conclude the following:

1. Religion is mostly inherited.
2. Religion is like Cola or computer operating systems. The one that has the strongest and most aggressive advertisement wins. The quality of the product doesn't really matter.
2. At least 99% of all people who follow a religion follow it for the wrong reason, and - to be blunt - don't really have a clue why they are doing it.

Your turn.

[Spatula]

Because it's so ... fetch

[Saturn]

Er, forgive my lack of understanding here, but what exactly is your question?

From all that, I conclude the following:
 
1. Religion is mostly inherited.
2. Religion is like Cola or computer operating systems. The one that has the strongest and most aggressive advertisement wins. The quality of the product doesn't really matter.
2. At least 99% of all people who follow a religion follow it for the wrong reason, and - to be blunt - don't really have a clue why they are doing it.

From a purely clinical, sociological point of view, this is true enough.  Religion is memetic, and tends to spread within society simply because of its nature.

Yet to claim that the only reason people become religious is because they're weakminded fools who merely follow cultural trends is far too simplistic a conclusion to be seriously argued.

[xvimbi]

From a purely clinical, sociological point of view, this is true enough.  Religion is memetic, and tends to spread within society simply because of its nature.

Yet to claim that the only reason people become religious is because they're weakminded fools who merely follow cultural trends is far too simplistic a conclusion to be seriously argued.

I did not say, the "only" reason. I did not talk about "weekminded fools", those are your words. However, is it really too simplistic?

The question is still: What really prompts people to start believing in a religion, and can they rightfully claim that their religion is The Truth, given the true reasons why they start to believe in a religion in the first place?

[Daevren]

Obviously religious people lack opjectivity in this area to notice or admit this themselves.

[janice]

Obviously religious people lack opjectivity in this area to notice or admit this themselves.

huh?

[allchopin]

Xvimbi: Although what you say is empirically true, and I do agree with you, it is really irrelevant how one gets involved in a religion.  Children may adhere to their parents religion because that is where they get their guidance - so what.  The reason for a religion, a system of beliefs, for most, is that it provides a way of life for that person and a set of 'rules' to live by in order to maintain peaceful existence.  As for those believing that their religion is The Truth, well this is true from one perspective.  To them, their religion IS the truth, because that is what they live by.  Now comparing theirs to other religions, I don't think the majority does this.  

[xvimbi]

Xvimbi: Although what you say is empirically true, and I do agree with you, it is really irrelevant how one gets involved in a religion.  Children may adhere to their parents religion because that is where they get their guidance - so what.  The reason for a religion, a system of beliefs, for most, is that it provides a way of life for that person and a set of 'rules' to live by in order to maintain peaceful existence.  As for those believing that their religion is The Truth, well this is true from one perspective.  To them, their religion IS the truth, because that is what they live by.  Now comparing theirs to other religions, I don't think the majority does this.  

This is a very reasonable answer, but it is not enough.

IMHO, the biggest problems with most religions is that they consider infidels as unworthy. In the best case, their followers consider infidels as doomed; they will end up in the respective hells of their religion. In the worst case, infidels are treated in an outright hostile way, often with deadly consequences. These views are derived from the fact that believers think their religion represents The Absolute Truth, not just their Truth.

I am not denying anybody their belief, but I want to make sure that everybody is truly conscious about it, that everybody is really clear why they are believing, and that nobody assumes their belief is the Ultimate Truth. Many believers don't fulfil a single one of these requests. Are they unreasonable?

[chopiabin]

I couldn't agree with you more. You should read some Nietzsche - he talks about tradition and how it rules our lives. I think the majority of his talk about this is in The Genealogy of Morals, but I'm not sure. He talks about how those that follow the tradition are generally considered good, and those who do not are generally considered evil. Of course, Nietzsche goes much more in depth -  I will quote him later if I have time.

One of the things that makes me the angriest is when some silly self-righteous Christian missionary decides that he/she will "save" the "poor people of China" and help them "see the light." How dare they? Who do they think they are?

[janice]

silly self-righteous Christian  

I couldn't agree more!  I hate self-righteous people!  Even though I am a Christian, I am not righteous at all.  In fact, I am a sinner in need of a Savior.

[Spatula]

One of the things that makes me the angriest is when some silly self-righteous Christian missionary decides that he/she will "save" the "poor people of China" and help them "see the light." How dare they? Who do they think they are?

We come in peace to share the good news (gospel)
and to see people changed and they will be happy!  

(You must be very very satisfied with my answer)

[meisel]

Many Christians can be divided into these two categories:
1: Have been raised by their parents to be good Christians, and have never rebelled against the family.
2: Have been raised in a Christian environment, often with christian parents, but have rebelled. However, because of problems later in life, they have then reached for the safe branch that they experienced in their childhood. Christianity also provides comfort, a feeling of belongingness and external love. It also provides rules, something that can come handy if you are in a point in your life where you dont know where to go, one lacks leading signs.

Normally a religious person dont believe in whatever they believe in because of logic scientific reasons, but for emotional reasons. Therefore, logic alone cannot convince a religious person that they have incorrect. Even if it could be mathematically proven that God doesn`t exist, people would have denied it, and made up explanations, not because they think that this is the truth, but because the world has to fit into their perception. If God died, how would i then live?
Recreating the perception they have created, destroying the world they have built, for then building up a new one, is too tiresome and difficult.

[DanDaMan]

IMHO, the biggest problems with most religions is that they consider infidels as unworthy. In the best case, their followers consider infidels as doomed; they will end up in the respective hells of their religion. In the worst case, infidels are treated in an outright hostile way, often with deadly consequences. These views are derived from the fact that believers think their religion represents The Absolute Truth, not just their Truth.

I am not denying anybody their belief, but I want to make sure that everybody is truly conscious about it, that everybody is really clear why they are believing, and that nobody assumes their belief is the Ultimate Truth. Many believers don't fulfil a single one of these requests. Are they unreasonable?

Now I respond to this with the perspective upon Christianty. But, it is impossible to be a christian and at the same time, act in hateful ways towards infidels, or unbelievers. Why? Because God has called us to love people, knowing that we too are no better than anyone else. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." As I continue to post about this subject, I continually ask God for the ability to love all the people here. Because it's not easy to keep your cool when people start debating about whether your religion is true. And I have been known to have temper ever since i was a youngin'. So for me to be able to keep my cool here is not something I could do, but only God could do.

{I'm asking this to make sure} that nobody assumes their belief is the Ultimate Truth

(used the {} for code purposes)

Don't all (most) religions all claim that theirs is the only Ultimate Truth? If one doesn't believe that their religion is the one and only Truth, doesn't that make it a false religion? And also, if one believes that all religions are correct, how could this be? As they all claim to be the Ultimate Truth, and there cannot be more than one Ultimate Truth when they are contradicting eachother.

[chopiabin]

So what do you think about the rest of xvimbi's post?

So you think that, although Christianity and Hinduism came about independently in different parts of the world (Hinduism is older), that somehow Christianity is the Ultimate Truth? What about all the Hinduists? Their religion is older and millions believe in it, what makes you think that yours is the truth? It seems to me that a loving god would have revealed divine truth to all people around the world at the same time instead of revealing it to an obscure corner of the globe.

[xvimbi]

Now I respond to this with the perspective upon Christianty. But, it is impossible to be a christian and at the same time, act in hateful ways towards infidels, or unbelievers.

From that I conclude that most so-called Christians around me are in fact not Christians, because their behavior certainly does not fit the bill. Anybody who supports somebody who claims God told him to go to war, or that the death penalty is absolutely ok or that poverty does not really need to be addressed would fall into that class.

Don't all (most) religions all claim that theirs is the only Ultimate Truth? If one doesn't believe that their religion is the one and only Truth, doesn't that make it a false religion? And also, if one believes that all religions are correct, how could this be? As they all claim to be the Ultimate Truth, and there cannot be more than one Ultimate Truth when they are contradicting eachother.

That is one of the points I am trying to make. There is a contradiction, and this contradiction has in the past wreaked a lot of havoc. People will never be able to get along if they assume their system of belief is the Absolute Truth. If one assumes that there is something wrong with somebody else's philosophy or religion, one has to be willing to accept that there might be something wrong with one's own philosophy or religion. People who are not willing to admit this are only able to distinguish between friend or enemy, good or evil, believers or non-believers, heaven or hell, and we have seen too many examples where this can lead over the millennia. Yet, as you say, what is the point of believing in something if one does not assume it is the Absolute Truth? Is there a way out of this conundrum?

[chopiabin]

Janice, any thoughts?

[janice]

Yes.  As xvimbi stated, how do we know that "ours" is the Truth, while "theirs" is not?
    Let's look at the definition of "Truth"--Literal Definition of "Truth" (Webster): "1. Conformity to fact or actuality. 2. Fidelity to an original or standard. 3. Reality: actuality. 4. A statement proven to be or accepted as true…."

The "Proper" Philosophical Definition of Truth: Truth is absolute: good for everyone, every where, for all times. Truth is knowable. Truth is that which "corresponds" to either a linguistic referent or to a metaphysical reality.1

…While "evidence" is noetically based, truth cannot be influenced by the human condition. Truth is truth whether or not humans perceive it as such…

…The fact that some disagree with or do not live out their lives in the shadow of "truth" does not negate the fact that truth exists. Truth exists whether or not any of us subscribe to it…

…It is the similarities between peoples and nations that prove this point-not the exceptions. Murder is bad, yet there are still some that will disagree with this absolute…

WHAT TRUTH IS NOT

Truth is NOT that "Which works" or "Brings about desired results"-that which we find expedient. If this were true, every defense in a court of law could be judged as "expedient" and proper.

Truth is NOT that which "coheres." Just because an argument is internally consistent does not make it true. Any set of false statements can be internally consistent but in no way represent the truth…

…While "coherency" is a test for truth it does not define the same.

Truth is NOT "that which was intended." Intentions may have little (or nothing) to do with the truth. This is self-evident.

Truth is NOT "what is more comprehensive." While comprehensiveness is a test for truth, it does NOT define the same…

…For example: A long-written speech is no truer than is a summary of the same.

Truth is NOT "what is subjectively and existentially relevant." If this were true, math and science have no claim to either truth or fame.

Truth is NOT "that which feels good." It is self-evident that bad feelings can also be true.2

PROVING THE CASE FOR TRUTH AND A STANDARD

Truth Exists

It is self-defeating to state that truth does not exist. If truth does not exist then there is no reason to believe what the relativist (or skeptic) is telling us…

…We may therefore deduce that relativism and skepticism are false. If they are false, then knowledge MUST exist…

…If knowledge exists, then the object of knowledge MUST also exist, namely, "truth"-else we argue in vain.3

A Standard Exists

The fact that we argue is evidence for "truth" and that a standard must exist; else we argue in vain. The very definition of argument assumes a standard.

The "Principle of Sufficient Reason" states that 'nothing' cannot produce something. There must be a cause for everything coming into existence-including truth.

Subjective opinion implies the changing whims of man's individuality and distinctiveness. Objective truth implies the consistency of a righteous, fair and immutable Standard.

If there is no Standard, all things become permissible-Hitler and Mother Teresa become co-equals. And we all "KNOW" better than this.

Truth has nothing to do with time periods, opinions, attitudes, paradigms, or trends. Truth is absolute. It is immutable.

For truth to exist at any level, a standard must exist somewhere that does not have to answer to a yet, still higher standard-else truth is not truth. If truth exists, then so too must a Standard Giver.

____________________

1 Norma Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Co, 1999), 741. 2 Ibid., 741-745. 3 Ronald H. Nash, Faith & Reason (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1988), 162. Other Sources: Mark Ashton, Absolute Truth? (Madison, WI: InterVarsity Press, 1996). Francis A. Schaeffer, Escape From Reason (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 32-42. Alister McGrath, A Passion for Truth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996). J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular Community (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987). Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976). James W. Sire, Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994). Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Victor Books, a division of Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1990).

-------------------------------------------------------

Chopiabin, does this adequately give you an answer of some sort?  I guess I wasn't too sure, but Absolute Truth was mentioned, so I sort of expanded along that line.  Let me know.

[chopiabin]

The "Proper" Philosophical Definition of Truth: Truth is absolute: good for everyone, every where, for all times. Truth is knowable. Truth is that which "corresponds" to either a linguistic referent or to a metaphysical reality.

Wow, how pretentious - how can they say they have the "proper" definition of truth. This is written from a Christian/Platonic bias.

Children in Africa are starving. Is this good for everyone?





…It is the similarities between peoples and nations that prove this point-not the exceptions. Murder is bad, yet there are still some that will disagree with this absolute…

Who defines this as an absolute? What if I disagree? How does one prove truth is absolute?

Christians and Muslims disagree on religion. They both believe in their respective religions with all their beings. Which one is right? How do you know?




Truth is NOT that which "coheres." Just because an argument is internally consistent does not make it true. Any set of false statements can be internally consistent but in no way represent the truth…

So... this could be Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, existentialism, etc.



Truth is NOT "that which was intended." Intentions may have little (or nothing) to do with the truth. This is self-evident.

A man accidentally fires a gun and kills someone. He did not do it intentionally. I guess he is "evil" then.



Truth is NOT "that which feels good." It is self-evident that bad feelings can also be true.

ie. Believing that life continues after death, beleiving in a religion because your parents brought you up in it and it is comfortable.

PROVING THE CASE FOR TRUTH AND A STANDARD

Truth Exists

Earlier it was stated that truth was knowable - what is it again? If I disagree with you, how will you prove that it is true?


It is self-defeating to state that truth does not exist. If truth does not exist then there is no reason to believe what the relativist (or skeptic) is telling us…

I am telling you that yes, there may be truth, but it is unknowable beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe that there is no god because from what I have observed of the universe through science and philosophy, I have seen not a single compelling shred of evidence.

…We may therefore deduce that relativism and skepticism are false. If they are false, then knowledge MUST exist…

How are they false? I believe that the universe appeared through the Big Bang, or that it is a branch off of another universe. Those ideas have more proof for them than the Christian idea of creation.

…If knowledge exists, then the object of knowledge MUST also exist, namely, "truth"-else we argue in vain.3

How so?

A Standard Exists

The fact that we argue is evidence for "truth" and that a standard must exist; else we argue in vain. The very definition of argument assumes a standard.

Point being?

The "Principle of Sufficient Reason" states that 'nothing' cannot produce something. There must be a cause for everything coming into existence-including truth.

Ok, I believe in the Big Bang. Also, the ideas of "cause and purpose" are purely human concepts.

Subjective opinion implies the changing whims of man's individuality and distinctiveness. Objective truth implies the consistency of a righteous, fair and immutable Standard.

How do they know it is righteous?

If there is no Standard, all things become permissible-Hitler and Mother Teresa become co-equals. And we all "KNOW" better than this.

I don't believe this is true. Hitler and Mother Teresa were both human beings whose actions had no moral value outside the earth. The reason why we see Hitler as "bad" and Mother Teresa as "good" is because they either worked against societal morals (Hitler), which are caused by an innate survival instinct which developed into what we call "morality", or for them. Human sacrifice used to be "good" because everyone believed it appeased the gods - ie. "good" and "evil" are relative.

Truth has nothing to do with time periods, opinions, attitudes, paradigms, or trends. Truth is absolute. It is immutable.

People used to believe that human sacrifice was "good" because it appeased the gods. Although current culture sees it as "evil"' we can not experience that mindset or societal morality. Society dictated that human sacrifice was "good" and there was no one aroud to say anything different - the humans defined what was good and evil. Therefore, human sacrfice at that point in time was "good."    

For truth to exist at any level, a standard must exist somewhere that does not have to answer to a yet, still higher standard-else truth is not truth. If truth exists, then so too must a Standard Giver.

Where is the standard? Some cultures even today beleive that cannibalism is perfectly acceptable. Can you prove, categorically, that they are wrong?


Chopiabin, does this adequately give you an answer of some sort?  I guess I wasn't too sure, but Absolute Truth was mentioned, so I sort of expanded along that line.  Let me know.


I was looking for something that adressed xvimbi's original question and this one: If two cultures believe equally strongly that their religion is absolute truth, how can one objectively know which is right? How does one put a value on a culture?

[janice]

I want to thank my good friend Mike, who has helped me to understand about Absolute Truth over the past several years.

If two cultures believe equally strongly that their religion is absolute truth, how can one objectively know which is right? How does one put a value on a culture?
 

Regarding culture--As Ravi Zacharias says, "In one culture they greet their neighbors, in another culture they eat their neighbors.  Which do you prefer?"  The western culture (Christianity) is to be prefered above all others.  Jesus says:  "Come now and let us reason together" concerning non-believers.  Mohammed says:  "Kill the infidel whereever you may find him."


Regarding Absolute Truth--You can be truly convinced you are right (muslims are) but you can be sincerely wrong.  The liberal metality is that everything is "right" (except Christianity) but that is absolute non-sense.  It make more sense to say that every religion is wrong (including Christianity) that to say they are all correct.  However, Christianity (not Christians) will stand up to any scrutiny.  There is not another faith or "- ism"  that will.  

[chopiabin]

You said:

Regarding culture--As Ravi Zacharias says, "In one culture they greet their neighbors, in another culture they eat their neighbors.  Which do you prefer?"  The western culture (Christianity) is to be prefered above all others.  Jesus says:  "Come now and let us reason together" concerning non-believers.  Mohammed says:  "Kill the infidel whereever you may find him.

This is based on preference, not truth. You are a Christian from a Judeo-Christian society, you are  not objective,  you see cannibalism as wrong, therefore you define it as evil. The cannibal is raised in a society where cannibalsim is good, he is not objective, he sees that you object to cannibalism, therefore he defines you as evil.

I don't understand how you can not see the dichotomy that exists here. Relativism is the only viable option - if you are at liberty to define what is right and wrong, then so is  anyone on earth. What if the two of you have different ideas of what is right and wrong? How can you prove it? You could open up the bible, but the person you are trying to convince does not believe in the bible as sacred, and you do not believe in their text as sacred. There is absolutely no way to know who is absolutely right. If you know of a way to find out, let me know.

You said:
Regarding Absolute Truth--You can be truly convinced you are right (muslims are) but you can be sincerely wrong.  The liberal metality is that everything is "right" (except Christianity) but that is absolute non-sense.  It make more sense to say that every religion is wrong (including Christianity) that to say they are all correct.  However, Christianity (not Christians) will stand up to any scrutiny.  There is not another faith or "- ism"  that will.  [/quote}

I do not believe that any religion is correct.  I do not believe that Christianity is "less right" than other religions, I just take more issue with it since I am surrounded by Christians. Christianity HAS fallen to scrutiny, but Christians have mastered the art of denial. I agree with you that there is no religion that stands to scrutiny, but I would like example of what you are talking about rather than a general statemnet.

[janice]

Christianity HAS fallen to scrutiny  

We agree on this point.

 but Christians have mastered the art of denial

errrrr............could you please explain what you mean?

[xvimbi]

 The western culture (Christianity) is to be prefered above all others.  Jesus says:  "Come now and let us reason together" concerning non-believers.  Mohammed says:  "Kill the infidel whereever you may find him.

Regarding Absolute Truth--You can be truly convinced you are right (muslims are) but you can be sincerely wrong.  The liberal metality is that everything is "right" (except Christianity) but that is absolute non-sense.  It make more sense to say that every religion is wrong (including Christianity) that to say they are all correct.  However, Christianity (not Christians) will stand up to any scrutiny.  There is not another faith or "- ism"  that will.  

There we have it: somebody claiming that their system of belief (and even culture) is right and everything else must be wrong. Not only does your quote about Islam reflect a deep ignorance, nor have you considered any other systems of belief in your comparison. What is your opinion about Hinduism? Well, I guess, I know already.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that scares the heck out of me.

[chopiabin]

 However, Christianity (not Christians) will stand up to any scrutiny.  There is not another faith or "- ism"  that will.  

How is it that we agree?

Will you look back over my last few posts? For some reason it included my words within the quote box, so I had to modify it.

[m1469]

So how do we measure veracity?  I am not trying to be tricky.  

Religionists, what is it that convinces you that you know what is Truth?  Even if it is a feeling, what is the affect (I still don't know which Affect/Effect to use where) of that feeling for you?

Scientists, what is it that convinces you of Truth?  How do you know what is Truth (scientifically speaking)?

I am not trying to argue that there is not any absolute Truth.  I am simply trying to get down to the bottom of why anybody believes to be true, what they believe.

M

[chopiabin]

Janice, I'm using your name. Will you please respond to my last few posts?

[janice]

Yes I will!  Thank you for your patience!:)

You said:

Regarding culture--As Ravi Zacharias says, "In one culture they greet their neighbors, in another culture they eat their neighbors.  Which do you prefer?"  The western culture (Christianity) is to be prefered above all others.  Jesus says:  "Come now and let us reason together" concerning non-believers.  Mohammed says:  "Kill the infidel whereever you may find him.
 
This is based on preference, not truth.

You would rather be killed than talk like we do on the forum?  I'll take talking over killing anytime . . . and if you thought it through, I think you would too.

You are a Christian from a Judeo-Christian society, you are  not objective,  you see cannibalism as wrong, therefore you define it as evil.
 

You are assuming I am a Christian from a Judeo-Christian society.  I may have been a cannibal and saw that the Christian way of living was preferable.  (There are many testimonies of former cannibals where this is exactly the case.)  However, you will be hard pressed to find true Christians who gave up Christian beliefs in order to start eating their neighbors. You really have no basis to say that I am not objective - that is your own subjective opinion.

 The cannibal is raised in a society where cannibalism is good, he is not objective, he sees that you object to cannibalism, therefore he defines you as evil.

You must get out more.  The cannibalistic cultures in Papau New Guinea (PNG) only ate feared enemies.  It was the ultimate put down.  They also believed that they then took on their enemies's power.  They did not eat their own tribal people.  They even despised the practice themselves, but felt forced into it to combat their enemies.  Those who eventually came to faith in Christ gave up the grisly practice, and often went back to the very tribes they were at war with to tell them the good news of Christ even at the cost of their own lives in some cases.  New Tribes Missions even produced 2 movies "Eee-tau" and "Eee-tau 2" showing the above with the actual former cannibals playing themselves.  Absolutely fascinating stories!  BTW, "Eee-tau" means "It is true!" and became the rallying cry of many tribes having come to faith in Christ.

I don't understand how you can not see the dichotomy that exists here.

There is none except in your own worldview.

Relativism is the only viable option

To which I must ask, is this statement absolutely true?  If you say yes, then absolute truth exists and relativism goes out the window.  If you say no . . . then your statement is false to begin with.  Absolute truth has a way of just rising to the surface whether you want it to or not.

- if you are at liberty to define what is right and wrong, then so is  anyone on earth.

I would suggest that this is what you are doing. However, you are taking it a step further.  You are saying that nothing can be declared right or wrong (relativism) except . . . your statements as to what is true.  For any of your statements to be worthy of discussing, you must believe that they are right (true) and that mine are wrong (false.)  If human reason and wisdom are all we have as a truth source, I would tend to agree with you, truth is up for grabs.  The bible even says in Joshua 21:25 "that there was no king in Israel (that would follow the Lord's word) so everyone did their own thing (what ever they deemed right in their own eyes.) However, my source for truth is God's word, the Bible.

What if the two of you have different ideas of what is right and wrong?  

see above in Joshua

How can you prove it?

Ahhh, now you are on to something, objective absolute truth.

 You could open up the bible,  

A wise thing to do.  As one man said, "Anything worth believing is worth questioning.  The trouble is most people have never truly "read" the Bible.  They form their beliefs by here say or by taking a few obscure texts of scripture and use it as "proof texting" for their point of view.

  but the person you are trying to convince does not believe in the bible as sacred,

They/you may say you don't believe it, but believing something or disbelieving something doesn't make it true or not true.  If something is true (God's word) we ought to believe it.  Jesus even challenges would be followers to check him out and "see if these things be so!"  Most people never take the time to truly examine the "Case for Christ" or the "Case for Faith", or even the "Case for the Creator."  (Three books by Lee Strobel that I highly recommend.  Enjoyable reading even if you are not a "believer."  They will force you to truly examine your beliefs to make them stronger . . . or abandon them all together.  Scary!)  They just continue on in their "own human wisdom" never really risking examining their beliefs and putting them up against real scholars, not some amateur like me.

 and you do not believe in their text as sacred.

And the reason is all other "sacred" texts have demonstrable errors or contradictions in them.  The Bible has none.  That doesn't mean there aren't some difficult passages in the Bible, but there are also reasonable explanations for all of them.  When people tell me the Bible is full of errors and contradictions, I simply say, "Name one.  You made the charge, the burden of proof is on you."  I've only had one individual ever take me up on that.  The examples they bought to me were very easily explained as the person had misread what the passage actually said.  I could have given them much more difficult passages to deal with.

(PS--I will break this up into 2 posts. ) end of part 1
 

[janice]

Part 2

There is absolutely no way to know who is absolutely right.  

There is one of those absolute truth statements coming from a relativist!  (You did mean that to be funny right?) But there is an element of truth to what you are saying.  Faith does come into play . . . but it is a reasonable faith.  You exercise faith everyday.  You get up at 7am because you "believe" the sun will come up and it will be light.  You believe that because you've exercised your "faith" for many years and it seems reasonable.  I've done the same with my "faith in Christ."  He has never let me down and has given me both peace and purpose in my life.  The Bible has been proven reliable as a truth source from a variety of disciplines from science, to history, to archaeology, to theology.

If you know of a way to find out, let me know.  

I just did.  Get any one of the books by Lee Stoebel. They will definitely make you think!  Keep searching, Chopiabin.  The Bible says that God is a "rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."  Your reward may be just around the corner!

[lingshu8]

So how do we measure veracity?  I am not trying to be tricky.  

Religionists, what is it that convinces you that you know what is Truth?  Even if it is a feeling, what is the affect (I still don't know which Affect/Effect to use where) of that feeling for you?

Scientists, what is it that convinces you of Truth?  How do you know what is Truth (scientifically speaking)?

Scientists use the scientific method.  This is the process of proposing a hypothesis, and then testing its accuracy by collecting data on events that the hypothesis predicts. If the predictions match the new data the hypothesis is "supported." Generally the best supported hypothesis is considered correct, until a better hypothesis is proposed and tested.  Most importantly, scientists are willing to alter their theories/hypotheses as soon as new evidence is discovered.

Most religious beliefs do not work this way.  They are not testable.   To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false.  

Most religions are based on "revelations" that usually cannot be objectively verified.   For example, no test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without God.  

Here's a question for someone who holds a religious belief:   is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your belief? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

Lingshu8

[xvimbi]

Most importantly, scientists are willing to alter their theories/hypotheses as soon as new evidence is discovered.

Are you saying, scientists are a bunch of flip-floppers?  

[chopiabin]

Janice:
o.
You would rather be killed than talk like we do on the forum?  I'll take talking over killing anytime . . . and if you thought it through, I think you would to


I agree. I would RATHER talk than be killed. What does preference have to do with truth? Using your logic, one could have evidence that their husband was cheating on them and then say: "I would rather that he weren't cheating on me " and then believe it. I honestly would PREFER/RATHER that life continued forever, but there is simply no evidence that it does. PREFERENCE is completely divorced from truth.

 However, you will be hard pressed to find true Christians who gave up Christian beliefs in order to start eating their neighbors.

You also rarely see a Christian who gives up every possession to others. It is much easier to be a typical Christian than it is to be a cannibal. People like to believe what is easy. I think that this is why the requirements of religions have gotten progressively eaiser as time has passed.



You must get out more.  The cannibalistic cultures in Papau New Guinea (PNG) only ate feared enemies.  It was the ultimate put down.  They also believed that they then took on their enemies's power.  They did not eat their own tribal people.  They even despised the practice themselves, but felt forced into it to combat their enemies.  Those who eventually came to faith in Christ gave up the grisly practice, and often went back to the very tribes they were at war with to tell them the good news of Christ even at the cost of their own lives in some cases.  New Tribes Missions even produced 2 movies "Eee-tau" and "Eee-tau 2" showing the above with the actual former cannibals playing themselves.  Absolutely fascinating stories!  BTW, "Eee-tau" means "It is true!" and became the rallying cry of many tribes having come to faith in Christ.

Maybe you should actually read my post. I never said anything about the cultures of Papau, New Guinea. I was speaking hypothetically. If it's easier to think about, you could just as easily compare the beliefs of Muslims or Hindus with those of Christians. I was trying to make a point by using an extreme HYPOTHETICAL example.



To which I must ask, is this statement absolutely true?  If you say yes, then absolute truth exists and relativism goes out the window.  If you say no . . . then your statement is false to begin with.  Absolute truth has a way of just rising to the surface whether you want it to or not.

This is a silly misconception that is probably my fault. When I was arguing against Absolute Truth, I was assuming you meant Asolute MORAL Truth. If a glass falls and breaks, then that is simply a fact. I definitely believe that facts exist. When I was arguing for Relativism, I was intending to argue for MORAL Relativism. I believe that it is a fact that MORALITY is not absolute.  


I would suggest that this is what you are doing. However, you are taking it a step further.  You are saying that nothing can be declared right or wrong (relativism) except . . . your statements as to what is true.  For any of your statements to be worthy of discussing, you must believe that they are right (true) and that mine are wrong (false.)  
see above...


They/you may say you don't believe it, but believing something or disbelieving something doesn't make it true or not true.

How can you prove that the bible is any more valid than any other sacred text. Earlier you argued with me that:

"You would rather be killed than talk like we do on the forum?  I'll take talking over killing anytime . . . and if you thought it through, I think you would too."

Your statement was based on preference, and I think that I showed that preference has nothing to do with truth, yet now you are saying that believeing or disbelieving something doesn't make it true - you are contradicting yourself.

 If something is true (God's word) we ought to believe it.  Jesus even challenges would be followers to check him out and "see if these things be so!"  Most people never take the time to truly examine the "Case for Christ" or the "Case for Faith", or even the "Case for the Creator."  (Three books by Lee Strobel that I highly recommend.  Enjoyable reading even if you are not a "believer."  They will force you to truly examine your beliefs to make them stronger . . . or abandon them all together.  Scary!)  They just continue on in their "own human wisdom" never really risking examining their beliefs and putting them up against real scholars, not some amateur like me.

I've actually read much of the bible, C.S. Lewis, and many other Christian scholars that I can't think of right now - I found that they didn't prove a thing.

And the reason is all other "sacred" texts have demonstrable errors or contradictions in them.  The Bible has none.

I guess that depends on your mastery of the art of denial. Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. There is also no evidence that the entire earth was flooded. I know there are others, but I'm about to leave.

That doesn't mean there aren't some difficult passages in the Bible, but there are also reasonable explanations for all of them.  When people tell me the Bible is full of errors and contradictions, I simply say, "Name one.  You made the charge, the burden of proof is on you."  I've only had one individual ever take me up on that.  The examples they bought to me were very easily explained as the person had misread what the passage actually said.  I could have given them much more difficult passages to deal with.

OK, where does the bible explain the contradiction between science and the bible?

[chopiabin]

I just did.  Get any one of the books by Lee Stoebel. They will definitely make you think!  Keep searching, Chopiabin.  The Bible says that God is a "rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."  Your reward may be just around the corner!

Christianity makes me sick because of the weakness it has implanted into society.

[bernhard]

 The cannibalistic cultures in Papau New Guinea (PNG) only ate feared enemies.  It was the ultimate put down.  They also believed that they then took on their enemies's power.  They did not eat their own tribal people.  They even despised the practice themselves, but felt forced into it to combat their enemies.    

Quite.

Cannibals eat their most powerful enemies to acquire their power.

Christians eat (at mass) the flesh and blood of Jesus (bread and wine) for pretty much the same reason.

Christians are metaphoric (symbolic) cannibals.

This also reminds me of the story of the two cannibals, father and son who were hiding in the bushes when a beautiful woman went by. The son whispered to the father: “Let’s capture her, take her home and eat her for dinner.” The father said: “I have a better idea. Let’s capture her, take her home and eat your mother for dinner.”

“I am afraid I must leave. I am having a friend for dinner tonight”
(Hannibal Lecter – “The Silence of the Lambs”)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[lingshu8]

all other "sacred" texts have demonstrable errors or contradictions in them.  The Bible has none.  That doesn't mean there aren't some difficult passages in the Bible, but there are also reasonable explanations for all of them.  When people tell me the Bible is full of errors and contradictions, I simply say, "Name one.  You made the charge, the burden of proof is on you."  I've only had one individual ever take me up on that.    

O.K.  Here are a few obvious examples:

The Bible is full of scientific inaccuracies. God describes hares chewing their cuds.  He says that the earth is set upon pillars, is flat, has four corners and that the sun revolves round it.  He says that the Moon produces its own light.

Furthermore, in the Bible, God approves of slavery, gives rules for buying slaves, tells how one should sell one's daughter into slavery, approves of a man "smiting his slave to death... for he is his money."  

According to the Bible, those who should be put to death include anyone who does not keep the sabbath, blasphemeth the name of the LORD, curseth his father, sacrificeth unto any god save unto the LORD only,  committeth adultery, masturbates, is uncircumcised, or homosexual.  

The Bible tells us that God made plants on the third day before there was a sun (which he made on the fourth day).

God tells Noah to make one small window (18 inches square) in the 450 foot ark for ventilation.

The Lord tells Moses that handicapped people, dwarves, people with funny noses or blemishes, with damaged testicles, or broken hands or feet, crooked backs, or who have scurvy or scabs cannot approach the altar of God because they would "profane" it.  

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

lingshu8

[janice]

O.K.  Here are a few obvious examples:

The Bible is full of scientific inaccuracies. God describes hares chewing their cuds.  He says that the earth is set upon pillars, is flat, has four corners and that the sun revolves round it.  He says that the Moon produces its own light.

No.  Many of these seeming contradictions are from the book of Psalms.  Not everything is translated literally.  Some is translated figuratively.  One might wonder, "How do I know when a passage is literal or figurative?"  Well, God commands us to love and honor.  However Jesus said that "Whoever does not hate his mother and father cannot be my disciple."  (not sure of the correct wording, off the top of my head.  Sorry).  But God tells us to honor our parents.  How can this be so?  The key is that you must look at the CONTEXT.

The Bible tells us that God made plants on the third day before there was a sun (which he made on the fourth day).  

If God can make the plants, could He not care for them?

[chopiabin]

Wow, what about my post or all the other stuff lingshu listed?
I know you're probably busy - I'm sorry, but if you could actually explain away all these things it would be pretty impressive.

Here's another one: If the ark was only 450 feet long, how did Noah fit in (not to mention collect) 2 of EVERY SPECIES on the planet? That would include elephants, bears, giraffes, kangaroos, rhinoceri, zebras, antelope, lions, tigers,  eagles, horses, buffalo, leopards, bats, platypi, cats, dogs, monkeys, cows, pandas, every species reptile, every species of amphibian, every species of insect, every species of bird, every species of mammal from all over the world. How the hell did that fit into a construction only 450 feet long?

How the hell did the marine life survive the change in water temperature and saliency? Why is there no evidence of a global flood?

[janice]

Wow, what about my post or all the other stuff lingshu listed?
I know you're probably busy - I'm sorry, but if you could actually explain away all these things it would be pretty impressive.

Yeah, sorry, I've had a very busy evening.  So know that I wasn't blowing you off, or anything!  Let me look up some stuff for you.  So I will post again in a little bit.  Because you asked some very good questions about the different animals, and I have some very good answers!

[chopiabin]

OK, I guess I just get a little worked up sometimes.

[janice]

Chopiabin,
Go to this website--www.answersingenesis.org, and go to the search.  Type in:  where did the different species come from?  It would be much easier for you to read it yourself, and if questions come to mind as you are reading, then you can get your answers answered more quickly.

[janice]

OK, I guess I just get a little worked up sometimes.

 No need to worry!!!  I'm enjoying our interactions!  So, thank you!

[janice]

Why is there no evidence of a global flood?

There most certainly is!  Again, at that same site--www.answersingenesis.org, go to the search and type in 'global flood' and also 'evidence of a young earth', and 'evidence for a worldwide flood'.   You will find lots of good reading!

[chopiabin]

I'm too tired to sift through all that now, but I would appreciate it if you could respond to my earlier posts - the 3 that directly precede Bernhard's.

[janice]

Christians eat (at mass) the flesh and blood of Jesus (bread and wine) for pretty much the same reason.

No, only Catholics do that.  Catholics believe that we are eating the literal flesh of Jesus.  They believe in what is called "trans-substantiation", which, by the way, has no Biblical basis.  Protestants, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was speaking FIGURATIVELY at the original Last Supper.

[janice]

Christianity makes me sick because of the weakness it has implanted into society.

Care to elaborate?

It's late so I will answer your last question at the end of the preceding post (the post that is 2 above Bernhard's):

 OK, where does the bible explain the contradiction between science and the bible?

Actually, there shouldn't be a contradiction between the Bible and science.  They "should" compliment one another, because God did create the laws that science teaches us.
(pssst, Chopiabin, I have a hard time figuring out your questions, because sometimes you put them in the form of a statement.  That's why they are overlooked many times!  My apologies!)

[lingshu8]

Protestants, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was speaking FIGURATIVELY at the original Last Supper.

Is God speaking "figuratively" or "metaphorically" when he approves of slavery, gives rules for buying slaves, tells how one should sell one's daughter into slavery, approves of a man "smiting his slave to death... for he is his money"?

Here are some specific passages from the Bible:

Ex.21:2 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant...."

Ex.21:7 "If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant...."

Ex.21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

Ex.22:3 "If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

Lev.22:11 "If the priest buy any soul with his money...."

Lev.25:39 "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee...."

Lev.25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever."

lingshu8

[janice]

Is God speaking "figuratively" or "metaphorically" when he approves of slavery, gives rules for buying slaves, tells how one should sell one's daughter into slavery, approves of a man "smiting his slave to death... for he is his money"?

God is speaking neither figuratively nor metaphorically.  He is speaking literally.  God doesn't necessarily approve of slavery just because He gives regulations for it.  It was a fact of life then, and so He gave instructions how to work within the system.  Same thing in the New Testament.  Some have said God approves of slavery because He gives instructions in Ephesians 6 to masters and slaves, but that's not true.  Since slavery was a fact of life in the Roman Empire, God told Christian slaves and masters how to treat each other.  The same could be said of divorce.  While it's clear that God doesn't approve of divorce, He gives instructions to those who are divorced, simply because they needed to know what to do in their circumstances.

Hope this answered your questions!

[chopiabin]

Janice, I don't believe tahta conversation must necessarily consist solely of questions, but can you please respond to the following statements? If you disagree with them, then I would like to hear how and why.

Janice:

You would rather be killed than talk like we do on the forum?  I'll take talking over killing anytime . . . and if you thought it through, I think you would to

Chop:
I agree. I would RATHER talk than be killed. What does preference have to do with truth? Using your logic, one could have evidence that their husband was cheating on them and then say: "I would rather that he weren't cheating on me " and then believe it. I honestly would PREFER/RATHER that life continued forever, but there is simply no evidence that it does. PREFERENCE is completely divorced from truth.

Janice:

However, you will be hard pressed to find true Christians who gave up Christian beliefs in order to start eating their neighbors.

Chop:
You also rarely see a Christian who gives up every possession to others. It is much easier to be a typical Christian than it is to be a cannibal. People like to believe what is easy. I think that this is why the requirements of religions have gotten progressively eaiser as time has passed.

Janice:

You must get out more.  The cannibalistic cultures in Papau New Guinea (PNG) only ate feared enemies.  It was the ultimate put down.  They also believed that they then took on their enemies's power.  They did not eat their own tribal people.  They even despised the practice themselves, but felt forced into it to combat their enemies.  Those who eventually came to faith in Christ gave up the grisly practice, and often went back to the very tribes they were at war with to tell them the good news of Christ even at the cost of their own lives in some cases.  New Tribes Missions even produced 2 movies "Eee-tau" and "Eee-tau 2" showing the above with the actual former cannibals playing themselves.  Absolutely fascinating stories!  BTW, "Eee-tau" means "It is true!" and became the rallying cry of many tribes having come to faith in Christ.

Chop:
Maybe you should actually read my post. I never said anything about the cultures of Papau, New Guinea. I was speaking hypothetically. If it's easier to think about, you could just as easily compare the beliefs of Muslims or Hindus with those of Christians. I was trying to make a point by using an extreme HYPOTHETICAL example.

Janice:

To which I must ask, is this statement absolutely true?  If you say yes, then absolute truth exists and relativism goes out the window.  If you say no . . . then your statement is false to begin with.  Absolute truth has a way of just rising to the surface whether you want it to or not.

Chop:
This is a silly misconception that is probably my fault. When I was arguing against Absolute Truth, I was assuming you meant Asolute MORAL Truth. If a glass falls and breaks, then that is simply a fact. I definitely believe that facts exist. When I was arguing for Relativism, I was intending to argue for MORAL Relativism. I believe that it is a fact that MORALITY is not absolute.  

Janice:

I would suggest that this is what you are doing. However, you are taking it a step further.  You are saying that nothing can be declared right or wrong (relativism) except . . . your statements as to what is true.  For any of your statements to be worthy of discussing, you must believe that they are right (true) and that mine are wrong (false.)

Chop:
see above...

Janice:

They/you may say you don't believe it, but believing something or disbelieving something doesn't make it true or not true.

Chop:
How can you prove that the bible is any more valid than any other sacred text? Earlier you argued with me that:

"You would rather be killed than talk like we do on the forum?  I'll take talking over killing anytime . . . and if you thought it through, I think you would too."

Your statement was based on preference, and I think that I showed that preference has nothing to do with truth, yet now you are saying that believeing or disbelieving something doesn't make it true - you are contradicting yourself.

Janice:

 If something is true (God's word) we ought to believe it.  Jesus even challenges would be followers to check him out and "see if these things be so!"  Most people never take the time to truly examine the "Case for Christ" or the "Case for Faith", or even the "Case for the Creator."  (Three books by Lee Strobel that I highly recommend.  Enjoyable reading even if you are not a "believer."  They will force you to truly examine your beliefs to make them stronger . . . or abandon them all together.  Scary!)  They just continue on in their "own human wisdom" never really risking examining their beliefs and putting them up against real scholars, not some amateur like me.

Chop:
I've actually read much of the bible, C.S. Lewis, and many other Christian scholars that I can't think of right now - I found that they didn't prove a thing.

Janice:

And the reason is all other "sacred" texts have demonstrable errors or contradictions in them.  The Bible has none.

Chop:
I guess that depends on your mastery of the art of denial. Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. There is also no evidence that the entire earth was flooded. I know there are others, but I'm about to leave.

Janice:
That doesn't mean there aren't some difficult passages in the Bible, but there are also reasonable explanations for all of them.  When people tell me the Bible is full of errors and contradictions, I simply say, "Name one.  You made the charge, the burden of proof is on you."  I've only had one individual ever take me up on that.  The examples they bought to me were very easily explained as the person had misread what the passage actually said.  I could have given them much more difficult passages to deal with.

OK, where does the bible explain the contradiction between science and the bible?

[lingshu8]

God doesn't necessarily approve of slavery just because He gives regulations for it.  It was a fact of life then, and so He gave instructions how to work within the system... Since slavery was a fact of life in the Roman Empire, God told Christian slaves and masters how to treat each other.

So God does not necessarily APPROVE of slavery, he just gives very specific instructions for the PRACTICE of slavery -- simply because slavery was a "fact of life" in society?

Hmm.  

BTW, the Buddha (who lived 500 years before Christ) did attempt to abolish slavery and the degrading caste system in Indian society.  If Buddha (who was merely a human teacher, not a deity) could stand up to these vile "facts of life" in society of which he disapproved, why couldn't God?

"Slavery is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
-- Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

[janice]

Chopiabin,
Many of your questions are very detailed and I can tell that you are a good thinker!  Unfortunately, I am NOT a Biblical scholar, and I don't want to give you a wrong answer!  I'm going to send you a private message, ok?  However, if you have a question about MY faith, I am certainly willing to share that with all!

[Shagdac]

I agree Janbo....I am also a believer and although my beliefs are somewhat based on faith, God has never let me down, and has also given my life purpose. For someone that does NOT WANT to believe, nor be open to the possibility, there will always be an excuse to be found, or reason to be had for their belief. If one is looking for absolute proof.....they'll never be satisfied, but if one seeks with an open mind (and heart) in earnest, and believes in the possibility, truly believes, then they can experience this for themselves, and no further proof will be required. The problem is, most people want to see some sort of miracle proof right before their eyes. But what kind of faith is that? If I have show you actual prove, then ones faith cannot be very strong. However (and this is just MY opinion, so don't bash me), if one is accepting, and has faith and believes with all their heart, based on His word in the Bible, the person will soon have all the proof they need.
Been there...done that.

S

[lingshu8]

So God does not necessarily APPROVE of slavery, he just gives very specific instructions for the PRACTICE of slavery -- simply because slavery was a "fact of life" in society?

"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
-- Mark Twain